Melville Fuller Quotes

There are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively …. Among the practices which the courts have heretofore deemed to be unlawful in and of themselves are price fixing, division of markets, group boycotts, and tying arrangements.

it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce … to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

There must be reasonable restrictions upon competition else we shall see competition destroyed.

The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade. It rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.

We seek the definite end of preventing combinations in furtherance of monopoly and in restraint of trade

Regulation is often a way to keep a dominant firm in place.

Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice.

… businessmen must compete, but no one may win the competition. It is this aspect of antitrust which creates two standards, one for big business, another for small business. No matter how vicious the competition of the little fellow, the big fellow must not countercompete too hard.

Amazon is not a monopoly or a monopsony, and even if it were, that by itself isn't illegal.

You won't get sued for anticompetitive behavior.

The so-called anti-trust laws were intended to prevent the creation of monopolies and to forbid unreasonable profits to those monopolies

In this country in colonial days the laws were very strict against combinations and contracts in restraint of trade. But here again there was a gradual amelioration of the laws, until co-operation was permitted along many lines, including division of territory, limitation of output, and even fixing of prices; provided always that, as a result of the co-operation, the combinations or contracts did not result in monopoly, were not general, were not immoral, and were not contrary to public policy.

The holder of a monopoly is a sinner and offender.

Free competition and the open market system as they were known in the old days, have lost their places in the system, and that the only substitute for them, in these modern times, is government regulation and control.

The only way you can stop the unregulated monopoly ... from gouging ... is to introduce competition.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public.

Adequate relief in a monopolization case should put an end to the combination and deprive the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal conduct, and break up or render impotent the monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act.

Possible economies cannot be used as a defense to illegality. Congress was aware that some mergers which lessen competition may also result in economies but it struck the balance in favor of protecting competition.

The citizens of the several States composing the Union are entitled, of right, to buy goods in the State where they are manufactured, or in any other State, without being confronted by an illegal combination whose business extends throughout the whole country, which by the law everywhere is an enemy to the public interests, and which prevents such buying, except at prices arbitrarily fixed by it. I insist that the free course of trade among the States cannot coexist with such combinations.

Antitrust is the way that the government promotes markets when there are market failures. It has nothing to do with the idea of free information.

I think we need to have stronger antitrust enforcement.

I'm for strong antitrust enforcement.

Like other antitrust agencies we make our assessment of a merger or antitrust case based on its impact on our jurisdiction, and not on the nationality of the companies. This is exactly what the U.S. antitrust agencies, the Justice Department and the FTC, do.